"Life As We Know It Will End If Obama is Elected."

[VoxAngelikus]

Ahhh the Christian Right... Still doing their best to make American look their worst. Here is there "prediction" for the next four years if Obama wins. I am surprised they don't invoke the Mayan calendar 2012 end of the world prophecy.

I'd like to see what they think four years of McCain would be like. I'm sure they'd have us looking like the greatest society on the planet.

Enjoy your laughs. Unless you're one of the Christian Right. Then, allow me to say, you suck balls.

Christian right predicts 'doomsday' under Obama (http://www.thestar.com/article/524389)


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Terrorist strikes on four American cities. Russia rolling into Eastern Europe. Israel hit by a nuclear bomb. Gay marriage in every state. The end of the Boy Scouts.


All are plausible scenarios if Democrat Barack Obama is elected president, according to a new addition to the campaign conversation called "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America," produced by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family Action.


Their projection into the future is part of an escalation in rhetoric from Christian right activists who are trying to paint Obama in the worst possible terms as the campaign heads into the final stretch and polls show the Democrat ahead in the race.


Although hard-edge attacks are common late in campaigns, the tenor of the strikes against Obama illustrate just how worried conservative Christian activists are about what will happen to their causes and influence if Democrats seize control of both Congress and the White House.


"It looks like, walks like, talks like and smells like desperation to me," said the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell of Houston, an Obama supporter who backed President Bush in the past two elections. The Methodist pastor called the 2012 letter "false and ridiculous." He said it showed that some Christian conservative leaders fear that Obama's faith-based appeals to voters are working.


Like other political advocacy groups, Christian right groups often raise worries about an election's consequences to mobilize voters. In the early 1980s, for example, direct mail from the Moral Majority warned that Congress would turn a blind eye to "smut peddlers" dangling pornography within the reach of children.


"Everyone uses fear in the last part of a campaign, but evangelicals are especially theologically prone to those sorts of arguments," said Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University political scientist. "There's a long tradition of predicting doom and gloom."


But the tone this election year is sharper than usual and they're pumping up the volume as Nov. 4 approaches.


Steve Strang, publisher of Charisma magazine, a Pentecostal publication, titled one of his recent weekly e-mails to readers, "Life As We Know It Will End If Obama is Elected."


Strang said gay rights and abortion rights would be strengthened in an Obama administration, taxes would rise and "people who hate Christianity will be emboldened to attack our freedoms."


Separately, a group called the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has posted a series of videos on its site and on YouTube called "7 Reasons Barack Obama is not a Christian."


The commission accuses Obama of "subtle diabolical deceit" in saying he is Christian, while he believes that people can be saved through other faiths.
But among the strongest pieces this year is Focus on the Family Action's letter, which has been posted on the group's website and is making the e-mail rounds. Signed by "A Christian from 2012," it claims a series of events could logically happen based on the group's interpretation of Obama's record, Democratic Party positions, recent court rulings and other trends.


Among the claims:


– A 6-3 liberal majority Supreme Court that results in rulings like making gay marriage the law of the land and forcing the Boy Scouts to "hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys." (In the imagined scenario, The Boy Scouts choose to disband rather than obey).


– A series of domestic and international disasters based on Obama's "reluctance to send troops overseas." This includes terrorist attacks on U.S. soil that kill hundreds, Russia occupying the Baltic states and Eastern European countries including Poland and the Czech Republic, and al Qaeda overwhelming Iraq.


– Nationalized health care with long lines for surgery and no access to hospitals for people over 80.


The goal was to "articulate the big picture," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for Focus on the Family Action. "If it is a doomsday picture, then it's a realistic picture," she said.


One of the clear targets is the young evangelical who might be considering Obama. The letter posits that young evangelicals provide the margin that let Obama defeat John McCain. But Margaret Feinberg, a Denver-area evangelical author, predicts failure.


"Young evangelicals are tired – like most people at this point in the election – and rhetoric which is fear-based, strong-arms the listener, and states opinion as fact will only polarize rather than further the informed, balanced discussion that younger voters are hungry for," she said.


In an interview, Strang said there are fewer state ballot measures to motivate conservative voters this election year and that the financial meltdown is distracting some voters from the abortion issue. But he said a last-minute push by conservative Christians in 2004 was key to Bush's re-election and predicted they could play the same role in 2008.


Kim Conger, a political scientist at Iowa State University, said a late push for evangelical voters did help Bush in 2004, "but it is a very different thing than getting people excited about John McCain," even with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick.


Phil Burress, head of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values, said the dynamics were quite different in 2004, when conservative Christians spent some energy calling Democrat John Kerry a flip-flopper but were mostly motivated by enthusiasm for George W. Bush.


Now, there is less excitement about McCain than fear of an Obama presidency, Burress said.


"This reminds me of when I was a school kid, when I had to go out in the hall and bury my head in my hands because of the atom bomb," he said.

[freegood]

Maybw someone should tell them that Jesus was likely black and/or "Arab".

[UNC]

Yes. Black Jews are everywhere these days

[Stax]

I like the Supreme Court example for multiple reasons. First, BSA v. Dale is the example they pick? Really?

Second, either president would be replacing liberal seats, not conservative ones, so the margins wouldn't shift much (as opposed to Bush who had one conservative and one reasonably liberal seat to replace, so he shifted things to the right a bit).

[Genius]

John McCain...pro-life leader and crusader against gay marriage? If the Christian Right expects McCain to be an extreme social conservative, I think they may need to rethink things a bit.

[UNC]

McCain > Obama

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Maybw someone should tell them that Jesus was likely black and/or "Arab".


He was Hebrew dipshit.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Jesus looked more like Obama than McCain. I think it's fucking hilarious how frantically these religious retards oppose abortion. There are other issues than a baby nobody wants and his/her shitty life therafter. OMG!! One of those dead babies can be the next jesus!@ Seriously. MYOB. What about school for the kids that are already alive? What about kids in other countries that are born with AIDS? There's a lot of other shit out there that's even more of a human tragedy. If religion is a part of your life and it helps you out, good for you. If religion runs your life, you're a fucking idiot. Especially if this one issue is the crusade you think is gonna put you over the top. Jesus wouldnt care about how you voted on abortion if you're an asshole already.

[Genius]

McCain > Obama

Failed Presidential bids, 2-0.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I could never abort the next pizzle

[Claydon]

Although I am not an obama supporter at all, this suggestion is just sad. The country will go on, however unsuccessfully with obama. We survived carter, I am sure we can survive his boy wonder.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

You have a booze label as an avatar.

That is dumb.

[Desperado]

Although I am not an obama supporter at all, this suggestion is just sad. The country will go on, however unsuccessfully with obama. We survived carter, I am sure we can survive his boy wonder.


Maybe we survived Bush(barely) should be more appropriate then Carter...

[Claydon]

Maybe we survived Bush(barely) should be more appropriate then Carter...

Bush can take the blame for iraq, and afghanistan, as for the economy, the credit can be spread all over the place INCLUDING but not limited to bush, bust most certainly those assholes in congress. but....we can leave that discussion for another thread.

[Soup Nazi]

Am I the only one who thinks the "End of the Boyscouts" and "Gay Marriage in Every State" seem a little bit out of place in the same statement as "Terrorist strikes on four American cities. Russia rolling into Eastern Europe. Israel hit by a nuclear bomb"?

I'm starting to think these evangelicals have their priorities a little out of whack...................

[Claydon]

evangelicals have their priorities a little out of whack...................

QFT

[taters]

He was Hebrew dipshit.

Yea, the original hebrews were arabic looking. The reason they do not look so now is because most modern jews are of european descent. In other words, they are descendants of the jews who lived in eastern and central europe for the past 1700 years.

Modern euro ashkenzic (sic) jews look nothng like their cultural ancestors due to over a millenia of intermixing, same way if you went back 2000 years, italians, egyptians, brits, spanish and russian and obviously american people would look nothing like they do today (various historical conquering, intermixing, dying out etc).

The so-called christian right aka American White Theocratic society is more dangerous than any 'terrorist' on the planet right now. They have no decency, no respect for the lives of others not like themselves (gays, non christians, non whites, women), and they are in control of most faucets of the most militarily powerful government in the world.

[Genius]

Am I the only one who thinks the "End of the Boyscouts" and "Gay Marriage in Every State" seem a little bit out of place in the same statement as "Terrorist strikes on four American cities. Russia rolling into Eastern Europe. Israel hit by a nuclear bomb"?

I'm starting to think these evangelicals have their priorities a little out of whack...................
Bush framed the Department of Homeland Security behind the ideal that the Boy Scouts were the first line of defense against terrorism. Under Obama, gay agents of al-Qaeda will infiltrate their ranks, sleeping in tents with little boys until America falls.

If that situation ever arises, I concede to the terrorists and tip my cap.

[Phil Theehor]

This is retarded. I had these folks in mind when I started the "who the fuck are you" thread in the philo forum.

Anyway, as someone who is both Christian and Right, the Christian Right makes me fucking sick. My God may not be your God, but as long as we are civil to each other, then we shouldn't have anything to worry about. Trying to impose your religious beliefs on the law of land isn't quite the same as imposing sharia law in some Low-rent-istan, but it's still not fucking cool. Bottom line here is that they, like the rest of us, should be pleased as hell that we live in a place where you are free to pursue (or not) your own relationship with the almighty and just leave it at that.

I haven't read every word in the Bible, so I can't claim to be a biblical scholar. And I know that these hate mongers can find a way to interpret the scriptures to say otherwise, but I still don't remember Jesus telling me to be mean to homos in anything I've ever read. In fact, what I took from Jesus was that I should be nice to everyone, and he’ll take care of people who offend him.

Worst thing to ever happen to the Republican Party was this unholy alliance (no pun intended) with these tongue-speaking, mega-church-dwelling, Darwin-disbelieving, telling-other-people-how-to-live shitheads. Yes, it got us the 2000 election, but crap, what did we win there? We got eight years of this shithead. Fuck, had I a time machine, I would go back and vote for Gore (not that a Republican vote matters in CT). That way, Johnny Mac would be running for re-election today.

[Pax Britannia]

Me and my mates were talking about a similar theme tonight. The main question I have for people more clued into American politics is this:

So lets say for a moment that Obama wins the election and goes on to slash the defence budget to pay for his massive welfare reforms. If there's a major terrorist attack on America 12-18 months after that does the attack pretty much end the Democratic Party hopes for re-election in 2012?

[Genius]

This kind of nonsense makes me seriously consider looking into Buddhism. I've never heard of a Buddhist spewing this kind of hate-filled nonsense.

[Claydon]

Me and my mates were talking about a similar theme tonight. The main question I have for people more clued into American politics is this:

So lets say for a moment that Obama wins the election and goes on to slash the defence budget to pay for his massive welfare reforms. If there's a major terrorist attack on America 12-18 months after that does the attack pretty much end the Democratic Party hopes for re-election in 2012?

Pretty much, however Im not sure how much he could cut defense since we have treaty obligations all over the world where we have to maintain so called garrison forces.

[Genius]

Me and my mates were talking about a similar theme tonight. The main question I have for people more clued into American politics is this:

So lets say for a moment that Obama wins the election and goes on to slash the defence budget to pay for his massive welfare reforms. If there's a major terrorist attack on America 12-18 months after that does the attack pretty much end the Democratic Party hopes for re-election in 2012?
Obama won't have to slash the defense budget, only pull out of Iraq. In fact, he hasn't stated once that he wants to cut defense, which is why you haven't heard a peep about it from the McCain camp.

That being said, a large part of Bush's victory in 04 was tying war and the military to defense against terrorism, which I think is a tactical and strategic mistake. Securing, not closing, the borders, along with increases in funding to and a streamlining of our intelligence agencies, and eliminating recruitment and upper-level terrorist figures is the best defense against terrorism. All of those are achievable without significant increases in defense spending. What we need are good ID checkers at the border and in customs, good intelligence gathering and sharing of information among the CIA, NSA, FBI, and DHS, with capable smart-bombers and small, elite special forces squads. That should about do it.

[Claydon]

Obama won't have to slash the defense budget, only pull out of Iraq. In fact, he hasn't stated once that he wants to cut defense, which is why you haven't heard a peep about it from the McCain camp.

That being said, a large part of Bush's victory in 04 was tying war and the military to defense against terrorism, which I think is a tactical and strategic mistake. Securing, not closing, the borders, along with increases in funding to and a streamlining of our intelligence agencies, and eliminating recruitment and upper-level terrorist figures is the best defense against terrorism. All of those are achievable without significant increases in defense spending. What we need are good ID checkers at the border and in customs, good intelligence gathering and sharing of information among the CIA, NSA, FBI, and DHS, with capable smart-bombers and small, elite special forces squads. That should about do it.

soooooo a deep water navy, and large mechanized brigades are no longer necessary?

[Feng]

Claydon knows everything... He has all the right answers.

[Mustard]

Me and my mates were talking about a similar theme tonight. The main question I have for people more clued into American politics is this:

So lets say for a moment that Obama wins the election and goes on to slash the defence budget to pay for his massive welfare reforms. If there's a major terrorist attack on America 12-18 months after that does the attack pretty much end the Democratic Party hopes for re-election in 2012?
Do you remember what happened after 9/11/2001? The world rallied behind us, and then George Bush rightly attacked the Taliban, and all was pretty well and good. Unfortunately, Bush then went and squandered that goodwill by deceiving the world about Iraq for a multitude of reasons, then proceeded to botch the invasion by not adequately planning everything out appropriately. And then proceeded to get re-elected in 2004, despite all of that.

But yeah, I think that you're absolutely right and I'm sure if Obama were to exactly follow in the footsteps of George Bush he won't be re-elected in 2012. Its a good thing though that it would appear that Obama has no intention of following any of the steps George Bush has taken, thank the Lord.

[Phil Theehor]

soooooo a deep water navy, and large mechanized brigades are no longer necessary?

We have a deep water navy, champ, and it is quite badass.

[Pax Britannia]

Do you remember what happened after 9/11/2001? The world rallied behind us, and then George Bush rightly attacked the Taliban, and all was pretty well and good. Unfortunately, Bush then went and squandered that goodwill by deceiving the world about Iraq for a multitude of reasons, then proceeded to botch the invasion by not adequately planning everything out appropriately. And then proceeded to get re-elected in 2004, despite all of that.

But yeah, I think that you're absolutely right and I'm sure if Obama were to exactly follow in the footsteps of George Bush he won't be re-elected in 2012. Its a good thing though that it would appear that Obama has no intention of following any of the steps George Bush has taken, thank the Lord.

This is a completely different situation to 2001 though, the world has changed. There hasnt been an attack on the States since 2001, something Bush can look back on with pride. What I was getting at is if Obama comes in and very publically reverses everything Bush has done and is then thanked with a terrorist attack that claims thousands of lives how would that effect the credibility of the Democratic party in the long run.

[Phil Theehor]

This is a completely different situation to 2001 though, the world has changed. There hasnt been an attack on the States since 2001, something Bush can look back on with pride. What I was getting at is if Obama comes in and very publically reverses everything Bush has done and is then thanked with a terrorist attack that claims thousands of lives how would that effect the credibility of the Democratic party in the long run.

Excellent question. It most certainly would. The perception of Dems as bed-wetting pansies would be solidified for a couple of terms.

On the flip side, if Obama dons a dishtac (sic), breaks bread with every faction arround the world, and maintains peace through diplomacy, then the opposite perception would occur. The Dems wouldn't be pussies, they'd be statesmen. The Republicans wouldn't be great protectors, they'd be war mongers.

[Pax Britannia]

On the flip side, if Obama dons a dishtac (sic), breaks bread with every faction arround the world, and maintains peace through diplomacy, then the opposite perception would occur. The Dems wouldn't be pussies, they'd be statesmen. The Republicans wouldn't be great protectors, they'd be war mongers.

That really is the political battle for the future isnt it.

[Mustard]

This is a completely different situation to 2001 though, the world has changed. There hasnt been an attack on the States since 2001, something Bush can look back on with pride. What I was getting at is if Obama comes in and very publically reverses everything Bush has done and is then thanked with a terrorist attack that claims thousands of lives how would that effect the credibility of the Democratic party in the long run.
So what about the attacks in London and Madrid? I'm sure those are of little consequence and Bush can also look back on those incidents with pride, right? You know, because they didn't happen in America.

In this day and age of informational awareness, the only reason Democratic credibility would be damaged if it was made aware that an Obama administration willfully acknowledged intelligence, and then did nothing about it, reminiscent of what George Bush did (or should I say didn't do?) in August of 2001. Or how about when the credibility behind Tony Blair was forever altered when it was learned that he had ties to the Downing Street Memo? These are the kinds of things that ruin credibility, the attacks themselves are horrible, its the reaction to them, and what was done to prevent them that would be looked at for credibility reasons.

Also, the majority of Americans, and a large majority of the enitre world, would be thrilled to death if Obama were to come in and reverse everything Bush has done. The world doesn't need to be one big police state love fest in order to be safe. The world needs peace to be safe, and warmongering policies rooted in greed and profit are no way to ensure a peaceful world.

[Claydon]

We have a deep water navy, champ, and it is quite badass.

I know the US has a deep water navy, it seemed to me that genius was suggesting that all we need are intel and light infantry/special ops forces.

[Genius]

soooooo a deep water navy, and large mechanized brigades are no longer necessary?
To fight terrorism? No.

As I said, Obama doesn't want to cut defense spending, and neither do I. I just don't think that using the military is an effective way of dealing with terrorism or terrorists.

[Hanover Fist]

To fight terrorism? No.

As I said, Obama doesn't want to cut defense spending, and neither do I. I just don't think that using the military is an effective way of dealing with terrorism or terrorists.

Unless of course those terrorists are being abetted and supplied by a state with a standing military.

[Pax Britannia]

So what about the attacks in London and Madrid? I'm sure those are of little consequence and Bush can also look back on those incidents with pride, right? You know, because they didn't happen in America.

Well I always assumed the attacks on London and Madrid didnt come back to Bush's actions in the minds of most Americans because they happened abroad.

In this day and age of informational awareness, the only reason Democratic credibility would be damaged if it was made aware that an Obama administration willfully acknowledged intelligence, and then did nothing about it, reminiscent of what George Bush did (or should I say didn't do?) in August of 2001. Or how about when the credibility behind Tony Blair was forever altered when it was learned that he had ties to the Downing Street Memo? These are the kinds of things that ruin credibility, the attacks themselves are horrible, its the reaction to them, and what was done to prevent them that would be looked at for credibility reasons.

There ya go. Thats the answer I was looking for.

Also, the majority of Americans, and a large majority of the enitre world, would be thrilled to death if Obama were to come in and reverse everything Bush has done. The world doesn't need to be one big police state love fest in order to be safe. The world needs peace to be safe, and warmongering policies rooted in greed and profit are no way to ensure a peaceful world.

I didnt say it had to be. However for right or wrong America has been attack free since 9/11. For the first time since the attacks we are having a wholesale change of policy, I was just curious about how an attack would alter peoples perceptions.

[Hobnail_Boot]

There hasnt been an attack on the States since 2001, something Bush can look back on with pride.
The mail anthrax attacks happened post-9/11.

[Insomniac]

Obama isn't a pacifist who suggests we should fight less or less aggressively. His argument is that he's going to fight terrorists more effectively than George Bush has.

Remember, his opposition to Iraq isn't that it was immoral, but that it was ineffective and peripheral to the War on Terror, which Obama seems to ardently still support.

[Pax Britannia]

Unless of course those terrorists are being abetted and supplied by a state with a standing military.

Indeed. A top notch anti-terror network isnt going to be much help against 50 Russian armoured divisions streaming into Georgia (future Nato member).

If only we could have both. Oh wait we can, it just costs allot.

[Genius]

Unless of course those terrorists are being abetted and supplied by a state with a standing military.
At this point, that is why I'm still for maintaining the military at its current levels, and not cutting spending. And even still, our military has been largely ineffective at eliminating these types of situations. The Taliban should be eradicated by now. That's why if we are going to use military force against rogue nations that harbor and aide terrorists, I think they should be smash and grab jobs, with little commitment, that do large amounts of immediate damage.

[Gary_Busey]

Um, I don't know if you guys have watched the debates or not, but McCain knows how to find Osama Bin Laden! He said so! He's just been keeping it a secret.

[Mustard]

Well I always assumed the attacks on London and Madrid didnt come back to Bush's actions in the minds of most Americans because they happened abroad.
Most Americans can't see passed the border, so I understand why you would think that.


I didnt say it had to be. However for right or wrong America has been attack free since 9/11. For the first time since the attacks we are having a wholesale change of policy, I was just curious about how an attack would alter peoples perceptions.
I figured as much that you too didn't feel that the world doesn't need to be one big police state love fest in order to be safe, but I felt compelled to make that point because it is relevant to the discussion.

So let me now turn the tables, so to speak. So lets say for a moment that Obama wins the election and goes on to slash the defense budget to pay for his massive welfare reforms. If Obama were to sit down with rogue and terrorist states and discuss the possibilities of peace and cease fires, and then a major terrorist attack on America 12-18 months after election were to be averted because of diplomacy and/or acting on actionable intelligence, does this pretty much solidify the Democratic Party hopes for re-election in 2012, and for many elections in the future?

[Mustard]

Um, I don't know if you guys have watched the debates or not, but McCain knows how to find Osama Bin Laden! He said so! He's just been keeping it a secret.
Like Nixon in '68 who claimed to know how to win Vietnam?

[Pax Britannia]

So let me now turn the tables, so to speak. So lets say for a moment that Obama wins the election and goes on to slash the defense budget to pay for his massive welfare reforms. If Obama were to sit down with rogue and terrorist states and discuss the possibilities of peace and cease fires, and then a major terrorist attack on America 12-18 months after election were to be averted because of diplomacy and/or acting on actionable intelligence, does this pretty much solidify the Democratic Party hopes for re-election in 2012, and for many elections in the future?

Cant say it any better than this:


The Dems wouldn't be pussies, they'd be statesmen. The Republicans wouldn't be great protectors, they'd be war mongers.

I think if Obama makes a success of this then the Democrats will profit immensely.

[freegood]

He was Hebrew dipshit.

What do you think Hebrews then look like?

Here's a hint.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Barack_Obama.jpg

[Hanover Fist]

Oh and we attacked Syria today, that's a good start.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_syria_us_raid

US special forces launch rare attack inside Syria


By ALBERT AJI, Associated Press Writer Albert Aji, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 24 mins ago
Syria claims U.S. attack Play Video CNN – Syria claims U.S. attack

DAMASCUS, Syria – U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as "serious aggression."

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.

A Syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said.

The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children.

A resident of the nearby village of Hwijeh said some of the helicopters landed and troops exited the aircraft and fired on a building. He said the aircraft flew along the Euphrates River into the area of farms and several brick factories. The witness spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information,

Syria's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the charges d'affaires of the United States and Iraq to protest against the strike.

"Syria condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible for this aggression and all its repercussions. Syria also calls on the Iraqi government to shoulder its responsibilities and launch and immediate investigation into this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria," the government statement said.

The area targeted is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency.

Iraqi travelers making their way home across the border reported hearing many explosions, said Farhan al-Mahalawi, mayor of Qaim.

On Thursday, U.S. Maj. Gen. John Kelly said Iraq's western borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan were fairly tight as a result of good policing by security forces in those countries but that Syria was a "different story."

"The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side," Kelly said. "We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement."

He added that the U.S. was helping construct a sand berm and ditches along the border.

"There hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years," Kelly said.

The foreign fighters network sends militants from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, the U.S. military official said.

He said that while American forces have had considerable success, with Iraqi help, in shutting down the "rat lines" in Iraq, and with foreign government help in North Africa, the Syrian node has been out of reach.

"The one piece of the puzzle we have not been showing success on is the nexus in Syria," the official said.

The White House in August approved similar special forces raids from Afghanistan across the border of Pakistan to target al-Qaida and Taliban operatives. At least one has been carried out.

The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been cut to an estimated 20 a month, a senior U.S. military intelligence official told the Associated Press in July. That's a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official.

Ninety percent of the foreign fighters enter through Syria, according to U.S. intelligence. Foreigners are some of the most deadly fighters in Iraq, trained in bomb-making and with small-arms expertise and more likely to be willing suicide bombers than Iraqis.

Foreign fighters toting cash have been al-Qaida in Iraq's chief source of income. They contributed more than 70 percent of operating budgets in one sector in Iraq, according to documents captured in September 2007 on the Syrian border. Most of the fighters were conveyed through professional smuggling networks, according to the report.

Iraqi insurgents seized Qaim in April 2005, forcing U.S. Marines to recapture the town the following month in heavy fighting. The area became secure only after Sunni tribes in Anbar turned against al-Qaida in late 2006 and joined forces with the Americans.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem accused the United States earlier this year of not giving his country the equipment needed to prevent foreign fighters from crossing into Iraq. He said Washington feared Syria could use such equipment against Israel.

Though Syria has long been viewed by the U.S. as a destabilizing country in the Middle East, in recent months, Damascus has been trying to change its image and end years of global seclusion.

Its president, Bashar Assad, has pursued indirect peace talks with Israel, mediated by Turkey, and says he wants direct talks next year. Syria also has agreed to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon, a country it used to dominate both politically and militarily, and has worked harder at stemming the flow of militants into Iraq.

The U.S. military in Baghdad did not immediately respond to a request for comment after Sunday's raid.

[Genius]

I have no problem with attacks like that. Now, invading Syria and undermining and destabilizing the government? Too far. These attacks? Little commitment, high success rate, immediate payoff, and relatively cheap. Modern warfare.

[Hanover Fist]

I have no problem with attacks like that. Now, invading Syria and undermining and destabilizing the government? Too far. These attacks? Little commitment, high success rate, immediate payoff, and relatively cheap. Modern warfare.

Of course then what do you do when they start mobilizing their army at the border and it risks blowing up into a large scale war with Iran coming to their aid?

[Genius]

Of course then what do you do when they start mobilizing their army at the border and it risks blowing up into a large scale war with Iran coming to their aid?
We hope Word War III stays conventional. I'm more worried about the similar attacks over the Pakistani border, but at this point, air strikes don't really risk American lives, kill terrorists and those who harbor them, and don't require the relatively large expenses of ground forces. I can live with that.